scholarly journals (In)certezze giuridiche sulla situazione della Crimea: una «mappa» dei casi pendenti o decisi davanti alle corti europee

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara De Vido
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the case of Crimea from an international law perspective, by reflecting on the numerous pending cases in front of the European Court of Human Rights and on two cases decided by the European Court of Justice. The chapter will not take a position on the legitimacy or not of the facts that led to the current situation. It will rather focus on the current de facto situation, case law, and on two pivotal notions in international law: sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

scholarly journals Interactions between European Court of Human Rights and Private International Law of European Union = Interacciones entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Privado de la Unión Europea

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Family Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
European Family

Abstract: The present work is concentrated on the analysis of the jurisprudence between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in the sector of private international law. In particular, it deals with the differences, similarities, influences, impact, etc. in the sector of family law, insolvency and succession according the Regulations and the private international law and last but not least the recognition of sentences by the European Member States.Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, International private law, European Court of Justice, European family law, insolvency, succession.Resumen: El presente trabajo se concentra en el análisis de la jurisprudencia entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo en el sector del derecho internacional privado. En particular, aborda las diferencias, similitudes, influencias, impacto, etc., en el sector del derecho de familia, la insolvencia y la sucesión de acuerdo con el Reglamento y el Derecho internacional privado y, por último, el reconocimiento de condenas por parte de los Estados miembros europeos.Palabras clave: Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, Derecho Internacional Privado, Tribunal Europeo de Justicia, Derecho de Familia Europeo, insolvencia, sucesión.

The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to Give Preliminary Rulings on the Interpretation of Mixed Agreements

2000 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Case ◽  
European Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
Mixed Agreements

AbstractThis article is about the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to interpret, under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, international agreements which include among their contracting parties the European Community, all or some of its Member States and one or more other subjects of international law and which fall partly within the competence of the Community and partly within the competence of the Member States (so-called ‘mixed agreements’). In particular, the article addresses the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the Court's jurisdiction covers those provisions of mixed agreements which have been concluded under Member State powers. New light has been shed upon the question of jurisdiction by the Court's judgment in Case C-53/96 Hermès v. FHT concerning the interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the 1994 Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the first case where the jurisdiction issue is addressed by the Court outside the context of association agreements. The article analyses the judgment and its implications in the light of both the Court's earlier case law and the legal and policy considerations at stake when the scope of the Court's jurisdiction is determined.

scholarly journals Steigimosi laisvė po Cartesio bylos: ES inkorporavimo doktrinos trūkumas ir to padariniai

Teisė ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 143-158
Author(s):  
Robertas Čiočys
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Seat

This article defines private international law doctrines of incorporation and real seat and then turns to the analysis of freedom of establishment guaranteed by the EC Treaty. The article analyses judgments of the European Court of Justice, interpreting the freedom of establishment in cases where companies tried to transfer their seats across frontiers, especially in light of the newest judgment in this area in the Cartesio case. The analysis of case law shows the link between the freedom of establishment and private international law doctrines. The article is concluded by a discussion of opportunities that free­dom of establishment provides for companies, alternatives for cross-border business restructurings and implications of rising number of these activities. Straipsnyje apibūdinamos tarptautinės privatinės teisės taikomos inkorporavimo ir buveinės doktri­nos ir tada analizuojama EB steigimo sutarties garantuojama steigimosi laisvė. Aptariama Europos Tei­singumo Teismo praktika interpretuojant steigimosi laisvę bylose, kai bendrovės bandė perkelti buveinę už valstybės ribų. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kaip supratimą keičia naujausia byla šioje srityje − Cartesio. Teis­mo praktikos analizė parodo steigimosi laisvės ir tarptautinės privatinės teisės doktrinų ryšį. Straipsnis baigiamas aptariant galimybes, kurias bendrovėms suteikia steigimosi laisvė, ir alternatyvas, kuriomis jos gali pasinaudoti, siekdamos pertvarkyti verslą, kai tai apima kelias valstybes, bei šio reiškinio dažnė­jimo padarinius.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document